Common Values

In LD Debate, there are three main values; in other words, ones that people just can't seem to stop using. Those three are as follows: Justice, equality, and liberty.

1. Justice

By far, this is the most overused value in debate. It literally can be used for just about anything, and really is employed as a substitute for the word "good." For example, instead of saying "capital punishment is good," one would say "capital punishment upholds justice." This is not to say that doing so is wrong, mainly because using justice--if used as a substitute--avoids conflict. If I were to say that my value was the goodness of capital punishment through a just society, a solid debater would ask me what that meant, and I would further have to waste time explaining my value during rebuttal. If you don't like arguing values, this is what we would call a "safe value:" that is, it doesn't really explain anything (unless you choose to elaborate on it in rebuttals), but it keeps you from having to waste extra time "clarifying" your argument.

2. Equality

Equality is a fairly common value mainly because people recognize it as something that is good. No one really spends time arguing against something good like equality because it either seems sadistic on their part or it's wasting time trying to dispel a "safe value." The negative can use it as part of what we like to call a "balanced negative." This is when the negative tries to argue that although the resolution may be affirmed some of the time--for specific situations--it must be negated because it cannot hold true for other situations in the real world. Therefore a natural equality is upheld. This argument, however, is really risky, and it is therefore not really recommended. Debaters normally would say that this is not a true equality, so this argument does not make equality a safe value, but rather one that would be the focus of a debate in such a situation of a "balanced negative."

3. Liberty

Liberty is another safe value because it is also generally thought to be something good. However, you must argue a limited liberty when you use this value because people would say that true liberty, if left unchecked, is anarchy. And anarchy is bad, so unlimited liberty is bad. Limited freedom, that is, freedom within the constraints of just laws, is left alone by most debaters. The value statement would typically go something like this: "Everyone should have the most liberty within the just constraints of the law, and therefore my value will be liberty. Everyone ought to have some kind of freedom." That's the most generic statement that can be made about liberty. Just be careful not to be to restrictive (aka "liberty is bad, so we should not have it at all") or too kind (aka "liberty should be unlimited, as we should have the right to cry fire in a crowded theater!").

Conclusion

These are the three most common values in LD Debate. You'll probably hear all of them at least once during a year, and you'll definitely see justice at least once a tournament. The best way to argue against these values is to say that they are better upheld by whatever side you're arguing INSTEAD of your opponent's side. Hey, you might even want to use these values for your own cases--they're really easy to argue. I've used them all, and they work rather well. Good luck!

by Will Henry '00